Time studies fail to accumulate because they lack systematic connection to general social theory
Evidence
Bergmann claims that the principal obstacle for the sociology of time consists in the lack of a well-founded, systematic connection to general sociological theory formation. As a rule, existing social-scientific studies of time are based on pretheoretical and arbitrarily selected models of time that for the most part rest loosely on philosophical, anthropological, or even everyday concepts. As a consequence, the sociological literature on time is made up of a variety of unconnected, noncumulative studies that are virtually “solipsistic” since they lack a sufficient connection to general approaches in social theory. — Hartmut Rosa, Social Acceleration, 75
Categorization
- XREF: Parallels the persistent complaint about interdisciplinary fields lacking a shared theoretical core (e.g., ‘along the archival grain’ debates about unruly epistemics). — connects to: Social theory lacks any systematic theory of acceleration unlike other modernization tendencies — Hartmut Rosa, Social Acceleration: A New Theory of…, 209; Sociology lacks a shared paradigm and so fragments into subdisciplines — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 40; Isolated historical measures lose validity as social contexts shift — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 831
Broader Connections
- Isolated historical measures lose validity as social contexts shift
#corroborates(0.85) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 831 - Social theory lacks any systematic theory of acceleration unlike other modernization tendencies
#corroborates(0.80) — Hartmut Rosa, Social Acceleration, 209 - Sociology lacks a shared paradigm and so fragments into subdisciplines
#exemplifies(0.75) — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 40